Nevertheless, it illustrates the type of reasoning that was probably used in the Pinto case. Is doing so ever morally legitimate? Is it wrong for business to sell a product that is not as safe as it could be, given current technology?
InFord executives decided to produce the Pinto. If companies would balance the production capability and production Covey, the end-result would be satisfying. Conclusion Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate financial tool.
Before producing the Pinto, Ford crash-tested various prototypes, in part to learn whether they met a safety standard proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA to reduce fires from traffic collisions. It is of the same scenario with the case of Ford and the Pinto, disregarding safety for monetary reasons.
Is business bluffing ethical? The prototypes all failed the mph test. The only morally relevant matter is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the interests of each consideration to the interests of each affected party.
This report was not written with the Pinto in mind; rather, it concerns fuel leakage in rollover accidents not rear-end collisionsand its computations applied to all Ford vehicles, not just the Pinto. Expense seems to be the issue, too, when it comes to SUV rollovers After nearly three hundred rollover deaths in Ford Expolers equipped with Firestone tires In the late s, Congress mandated NHTSA to conduct rollover road tests on all SUVs Previously, the agency had relied on mathematical ferulas based on accident statistics to evaluate rollover resistance rather than doing real-world tests.
If you, as a person of whatever position in the society, would think that the life of a human being can have monetary value then you are gravely mistaken. The only Pintos to pass the test had been modified in some way—for example, with a rubber bladder in the gas tank or a piece of steel between the tank and the rear bumper.
They should have paid for ending the lives of those people. Is it wrong to sell a vehicle that is less safe than competing products on the market? Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety?
Have the automakers met their moral obligation to consumers, or have they acted wrongly by not doing more to increase SUV safety? It broke down the costs as follows: Custom Pinto Case essay. Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? Are there limits to how far automakers must go in the name of safety?
Buy custom Pinto Case essay What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? The Ford Motor Company used this data along with other statistical studies to determine the cost benefit of improving the safety of the Ford Pinto compared to the cost of loss of life. Ford officials would cite the principles of low-cost or cost-benefit analysis and affordable vehicles for the customers as the moral principle that could justify their decision.
In Ford was obliged to recall all Pintos for fuel-tank modifications. In the name of morality and in valuing human beings, automakers should do their best to keep their automobiles as safe as possible without thinking of monetary gain but of being responsible for other people.
What if one of your family members; wife, husband, son, daughter, or parents, happen to take a ride with a friend who is using Pinto and had an accident? Never one to take a backseat to the competition, Ford Motor Company decided to meet the threat from abroad head-on.
How exactly did Ford reach that conclusion? Moreover, if Ford told the potential customers about their decision, it would make them turn away and not bother to buy the Pinto at all. On March 13, the jury found Ford not guilty of criminal homicide.
It is still cost-benefit reasoning. What role if any should it play in moral detection? Some observers thought not when Twenty years later an Atlanta jury held the General Motors Corporation responsible for the death of a Georgia teenager in the fiery crash of one of its pickup trucks.
As a result, Ford spent a lot more money fixing the effects of the bad product instead of fixing the product itself.
Ford puts the figure at 23; its critics say the figure is closer to Embarrassed by the test results, the companies promised to make more safety features standard equipment on new SUVs. The gas tank of the Pinto exploded on impact.Get an answer for 'Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool and what role should it play in moral deliberation?Moral Issues in Business' and find homework help for other Business questions at eNotes.
Ethical Decisions in the Ford Pinto Case. This essay aims to address whether cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool and what role, if any, it should play in moral deliberation, especially when placing a monetary value on a human life.
4.) Is Cost–benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What role, if any, should it play in moral deliberation? Critically access the example of cost- /5(1). Is Cost Benefit Analysis A Legitimate Tool And What Role Should It Play In Moral Deliberation. Pinto) Week 4 1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise?Moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises included producing dangerous products which are not safe to use it without informing the dangerous of the products to the public.
In addition. Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool and what role should it play in moral deliberation? Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case.
Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case%(30). Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool and what role should it play in moral deliberation? April 26, analysis Business deliberation moral play Tool. 0. the role of business is to make money and a cost benefit analysis is a very useful tool in figuring out how to do so.
When it comes to morals, however, cost-benefit analysis is .Download